Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

How to Motivate and Engage Generation

Clash of Clans at Work? Emergent
Properties of Business Gamification
Elements in the Digital Economy
Nicholas Dacre , Panos Constantinides , & Joe Nandhakumar
a, * a a

a
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
*
Corresponding Author: nicholas.dacre@mail.wbs.ac.uk

Abstract
Organisations are currently lacking in developing and implementing business
systems in meaningful ways to motivate and engage their staff. This is
particularly salient as the average employee spends eleven cumulative years
of their life at work, however less than one third of the workforce are actually
engaged in their duties throughout their career. Such low levels of
engagement are particularly prominent with younger employees, referred to
as Generation Y (GenY), who are the least engaged of all groups at work.
However, they will dedicate around five cumulative years of their life
immersed playing video games such as ‘Clash of Clans’, whether for social,
competitive, extrinsic, or intrinsic motivational factors.

Using behavioural concepts derived from video games, and applying game
design elements in business systems to motivate employees in the digital
economy, is a concept which has come to be recognised as Business
Gamification. Thus, the purpose of this research paper is to further our
understanding of game design elements for business, and investigate their
properties from design to implementation in gamified systems. Following a
two-year ethnographic style study with both a system development, and a
communication agency largely staffed with GenY employees, findings
suggest properties in game design elements are emergent and temporal in
their instantiations.

Keywords: Business Gamification, Motivation, Digital Economy, Leaderboard, Clash of

Clans, Enterprise Gamification, Gamification, Engagement, Self-Continuity, Employee,
Gen Y, Workforce, Staff, Millennials.

Cite this Paper

Dacre, N., Constantinides, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2015). How to Motivate and Engage
Generation Clash of Clans at Work? Emergent Properties of Business Gamification
Elements in the Digital Economy. International Gamification for Business Conference,
Birmingham, UK. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3809398

International Gamification for Business Conference 1

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

Introduction
Companies striving to embrace the digital economy (Skilton, 2015) have
historically committed considerable resources into developing their business
systems towards greater efficiency (Ciborra & Hanseth, 1998; Strader, Lin, &
Shaw, 1998). This is particularly salient as organisations transition from relying on
incumbent platforms, such as legacy ERP or CRM infrastructures as a source of
competitive advantage towards implementing new and innovative internal
business applications (Herzig, Ameling, & Schill, 2012). In this context, built on an
architecture of dispersed, highly interconnected, always-on systems such as
cloud-based corporate platforms, the digital economy affords businesses
innovative opportunities to disrupt organisational processes and enhance their
competitive advantage (Briscoe & Marinos, 2009; Skilton, 2015). However, whilst
focusing on elements of operational functionality (Ciborra, 2000), organisations
have largely neglected human-elements of motivation and engagement in the
development and implementation of their business systems.

Considering that two thirds of employees are either disengaged or actively

disengaged in their work activities (O'Boyle & Harter, 2014), companies must also
consider the challenges of staff motivation and engagement across their business
systems. One novel approach to applying these dimensions in the digital economy,
is by leveraging certain highly engaging game design elements and game
mechanics typically derived from video games (Thom, Millen, & DiMicco, 2012). In
order to further understand the motivational properties of these game design
elements, and what this may signify for business systems, in the following section
we focus on one of the most successful games currently in circulation called ‘Clash
of Clans’ and the significance with its users.

Generation Clash of Clans

Clash of Clans originally developed by Finnish company Supercell (Carayannis &
Rakhmatullin, 2014), is both outperforming and outranking in terms of downloads
and active users, most other titles in the gaming industry, including well renowned
Candy Crush Saga (Erturkoglu, Zhang, & Mao, 2015). The game’s success is such
that it has displaced traditional Massively Multiplayer Online Game (MMOG)
behemoth World of Warcraft which held a record breaking 12 million users at its
peak (Lee et al., 2011). In contrast, Supercell have an estimated 29 million active
daily users across their gaming platforms, which in turn generate around $5 million
in revenue each day (Cheng, 2014). This accessible and yet highly addictive
strategy game represents a confounding success of mobile and gaming innovation
in the digital economy.

The largest segment of players in Clash of Clans comprise of Generation Y (GenY)

participants (as shown in Figure 1). These individuals are highly adept with
nascent technology, have grown to expect instant feedback, and espouse greater
levels of self-determination (Connor et al., 2008; MacLeod & Clarke, 2009).
Players immersed in Clash of Clans will also elect to dedicate anywhere between
30 minutes and 6 hours of gaming per day, whilst trying to earn virtual trophies,
climb the leaderboard, and engage in battle quests (Supercell, 2014).

International Gamification for Business Conference 2

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

However, these figures are in stark contrast to the levels of engagement and
motivation of analogous employees in the workplace (O'Boyle & Harter, 2014).
Thus, the game design elements employed to captivate and engage users in Clash
of Clans, should be of significance for organisations wishing to engage their
employees across their business systems in the digital economy.

Figure 1: Clash of Clans by Gen. Identifier (adapted from newzoo data explorer)

The Disengaged Workforce

An overwhelming two thirds of staff are either not engaged or actively disengaged
whilst at work costing the UK economy between £52 and £70 billion in lost
productivity each year (O'Boyle & Harter, 2014). Such is the problem that the UK
Secretary of State for Business, initiated an investigation which lead to the 2009
MacLeod ‘Engagement for Success’ report (MacLeod & Clarke, 2009). One
particular aspect of the document outlined that younger employees “want more out
of work than simply a wage packet at the end of the week” (ibid, p.29).
Furthermore, GenY workers represent the least engaged of all the groups in the
workplace (Adkins, 2015). This is particularly problematic for organisations that
rely on a growing number of younger graduate employees who are less “willing to
abandon that desire for self-determination when they enter work” (MacLeod &
Clarke, 2009, p. 29).

As illustrated in Clash of Clans, GenY will elect to dedicate a considerable amount

of time actively participating across a number of interactive, social, collaborative
and competitive activities whilst immersed in video games (McGonigal, 2011;
Supercell, 2014). This poses a distinct challenge for companies on how to design
and implement business systems that may motivate and engage GenY staff. In
response to these challenges there is increasing evidence that organisations such
as Delloitte, Capgemini, IBM, and SAP for example, are introducing game design
elements into their business systems (El-Masri et al., 2015; Hamari, Koivisto, &
Sarsa, 2014; Herzig et al., 2012). Ultimately, towards motivating and engaging
their employees, particularly GenY, across a multitude of behavioural dimensions.
This nascent process has come to be recognised as the ‘Gamification’ of internal
employee business systems towards greater motivation and engagement across
the enterprise.

International Gamification for Business Conference 3

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

In this section we have identified game design elements as particularly salient for
business systems in order to motivate and engage, an otherwise disengaged
generation of employees. Now a discussion on the conceptual background and
understanding of gamification is presented. Particular relevance is focused on the
concepts of business gamification and self-determination theory, followed by
literary evidence of application in practice. The research and approach section
outline the applied methodology followed by the analysis and findings. Finally, the
contributions are presented.

Conceptual Background
Gamification refers to the idea of incorporating a variety of game design elements,
mechanics, dynamics, and behavioural approaches typically derived from video
games to non-game contexts (Burke, 2014; Deterding et al., 2011; Hamari,
Huotari, & Tolvanen, 2015; Kapp, 2012). Implementing games outside of
traditionally recognised leisure activities, such as in a work environment, in itself
is not a new phenomenon. One of the most notable applications of this approach
to date has been through ‘Serious Games’. However, the concept of gamification
should not be confused with serious games. Although some similarities can be
drawn between serious games and gamification, and the terms in some scholarly
articles have been used interchangeably (Richter, Raban, & Rafaeli, 2015),
serious games and gamification however are not one and the same (Landers et
al., 2015).

Serious games present an embodiment of a game, as in the virtual representation

often delivered as a 3D construct built on the same architecture as video games
(such as the Unity game engine) which encompass levels of interactivity through
a graphic user interface (Petridis et al., 2010). Where a video game might be
centred on leisurely pursuits (Wood, Griffiths, & Parke, 2007), serious games
however are generally developed for educational and training purposes (Michael
& Chen, 2005). Gamification, in contrast to serious games, is not generally
supported by a fully stimulatory environment developed through a game engine.
Instead it proposes the adoption of game design elements typically derived from
video games and applied to non-game contexts (Deterding et al., 2011), towards
eliciting customer or employee engagement (Herger, 2014; Zichermann &
Cunningham, 2011).

Business Gamification
Whilst gamification has been applied in a variety of organisational settings
(Deterding, 2012; Khatib et al., 2011; King et al., 2013; Monu & Ralph, 2013;
Singh, 2012), the concept itself can be delineated as either customer-focused or
business-focused. Where a customer-focused approach to gamification is
adopted, game design elements are normally used to engage consumers across
a number of marketing approaches (Huotari & Hamari, 2012; Paharia, 2013;
Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011). However, where gamification is used in a
business environment, this is referred to as ‘Business Gamification’ or ‘Enterprise
Gamification’ and is typically focused on engaging and motivating employees
(Herger, 2014; Mollick & Rothbard, 2013; Penenberg, 2013; Reeves & Read,

International Gamification for Business Conference 4

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

2013). In this context, gamification enables organisations focused on business

issues, on providing meaningful methods in which to apply a range of motivational
and engaging game design elements through their enterprise systems (Herzig et
al., 2012; Rauch, 2013; Thom et al., 2012).

The result and success of this type of gamification can vary depending on how
these elements are applied across business systems, and the context in which
they are adopted (Thom et al., 2012). One such factor of success is by establishing
greater levels of self-determination through the application of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational factors (Hamari et al., 2014; Muntean, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Self-Determination Theory and Gamification

As outlined in the MacLeod report (2009), self-determination is a particularly
important dimension for GenY in the workplace. The concept of self-determination
has a long research history, predominantly through the work of Ryan & Deci (2000)
attributing dimensions of Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy as basic
universal human requirements towards greater self-continuity (Sani, 2010).
Essentially, these dimensions seek to provide levels of mastery, connection and
independence in supporting basic human psychological needs, whilst not
necessarily disconnecting individuals from collaborative activities (Deci &
Vansteenkiste, 2004).

Self-determination theory has more recently been the focus of human engagement
and motivation research through the exploration of intrinsic and extrinsic values in
gamified systems (Hamari et al., 2014; Nicholson, 2012). Engagement and
motivation in self-determination theory state that, greater the levels of intrinsic
motivation, as in an internalised or emotional stimulus, the greater the pull towards
completing an activity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast, where activities are
inherently driven by extrinsic motivation, these may motivate in the short-term but
can also have a detrimental effect on the long term intrinsic motivational factors of
an activity. Having reviewed the conceptual background to business gamification,
we now outline our methodological approach and the context of our empirical
research.

Research Approach
This paper draws on ethnographic data collected over two years from both a
system development, and a communication agency with a largely GenY workforce.
From the onset of the research process, the agency was operating in a market
with progressively diminishing margins, and required new and innovative ways to
motivate and engage its employees towards increasing its competitive advantage.
The lead researcher was able to observe and capture both the development and
implementation of this gamified business system throughout the two years of
fieldwork, during which the following key research question was examined; If
gamification is the use of game design elements in a non-game context, what are
the properties of game design elements in gamified business systems?

International Gamification for Business Conference 5

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

The process of the project endeavoured both the system developer and the
communication agency to work together in developing various strategies, game
mechanics and game design elements. These would be implemented into a
gamified business system that would not only facilitate the effective support of key
business processes for the agency, but also provide a highly innovative and
engaging platform for their employees.

Analysis and Initial Findings

In this analysis we focus on the emergent properties of one of the most prominent
game design elements in the agency’s gamified business systems. We use the
concept of self-continuity (Sani, 2010) to specifically focus on a distinct game
design element which embodies the reflection of the ‘self’ over time. This is
particularly important as self-continuity elements can be recognised by individual
achievements, badges, trophies, or evolutionary aspects of an online profile in a
gamified business system or video game. For example, one of the most prominent
game design elements of self-continuity in the Clash of Clan video game, is
through the leaderboard system (as show in Figure 2).

Figure 2: Clash of Clans Leaderboard System

Self-continuity in this context, represents the projection of the person’s various

achievements, goals and online profile over time. Social psychologist, Professor
Sani states that “we have a sense of self-continuity because inside us there truly
is something that corresponds to a continuous self, something that is the subject
of all our experiences” (2010, p. 1). In the context of our empirical study we use
this interpretation of self-continuity to identify the agency’s Leaderboard system as
a particularly salient game design element, and its significance for individual
employees perpetuated with the self over time.

Leaderboard
The agency’s Leaderboard system offers a visual representation of the top tier of
system users identified as highflyers. Every time an employee logs into the
gamified enterprise system, on the right side of the screen, prominently positioned
is the leaderboard listing top achievers in a number of categories. Some of the
metrics used in calculating the position of employees on the leaderboard are
through various mechanics, dynamics and collaborative or participatory
endeavours.

International Gamification for Business Conference 6

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

The mechanics and rules which mediate the leaderboard system are such that all
accumulated points are levelled at the end of the calendar year for every single
employee in the company. This innovative game mechanic emerged from the
design process, when the system developer and agency debated how to keep
employees engaged throughout the leaderboard system. For example, when a
number of highflyers were found to be consistently at the top of the leaderboard,
this in turn proved challenging for other staff to gain recognition for their activities.
Hitherto there was very little incentive for other staff to engage with the leaderboard
system.

Motivational Properties
What transpires from our analysis, is that the motivational properties of the
leaderboard is much higher for employees who engage with the gamified business
system nearer the start of the calendar year. This is especially significant as this
is when all active employees essentially commence their journey together through
the digital infrastructure, as everyone’s points begin variably at the same level.
This provides an element of commonality and community, and reinforces the
cultural ethos of ‘we are in this together’, which the agency tries to foster towards
synergised collaboration through the business system. Everyone starts the game
with the same abilities and opportunities at that stage, and the empirical evidence
suggest that during this period, the motivational properties through the
leaderboard system are very high. Individual employees are hoping to get
recognised and gain kudos from their colleagues. However, when running the
same analysis with employees who join the company at a later stage the findings
reveal different engagement properties.

Emerging Affordance
The agency employs new staff at different times of the year, as it is sensible to
recognise that businesses generally do not only recruit new staff at year start.
Staffing is a constant organisational process due to factors such as expansion,
new projects or natural attrition. When analysing specific interviews with
employees who joined the agency mid-term, a common theme of disengagement
with the leaderboard system emerges. For example, in one case an employee
joined the company in September, at that stage the leaderboard highflyers were
well established having earned points and rewards for their activities across the
gamified business system during the previous eight months. In this case the
employee’s engagement with the leaderboard system was very low.

“…there’s no incentive for me to try and climb the leaderboard, have you
seen where [name anonymised] is, look at how many [points] he has, how
am I going to beat that?”

The challenge in earning enough points to get listed in any meaningful way on the
system by employees joining mid-term, and therefore have their work activities
and engagement with the gamified business system recognised, is perceived as
being unsurmountable through the leaderboard. In this case a low level of
engagement is afforded by properties of that game design element over time,

International Gamification for Business Conference 7

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

which not only has the counterintuitive effect of disengaging certain members, but
also impacts overall self-continuity of individual employees. Here, the leaderboard
offers varying degrees of motivation and engagement depending on its temporal
context rather than its situational setting.

This analysis into the leaderboard provides us with an insight into the emergent
properties of game design elements from the design process, to the affordance
between the employee and the gamified business system. These emergent
properties are also found to originate from the design process, but also from the
rules and engagement pull factor instantiated from the activities by colleagues
within this business system.

Temporal Dimension
Through our analysis the empirical data suggests temporal dimensions for game
design elements in a gamified business system. Where a game element which
provides the same function over time may be perceived differently and therefore
affects the levels of motivation and ultimately the levels of employee engagement
through the business system. This analysis offers implications in our
understanding of the role and impact of game design elements for levels of
employee engagement through a gamified business system.

Conclusion
Although this research provides an insight into understanding game design
element properties in a gamified business system, it is not without limitations.
Using self-continuity, we analysed a specific game design element over time,
however further research might engage in a wider analysis of congruent elements.

In this particular study, our findings suggest that game design elements exhibit
emergent properties which can be situated in both the design and development
process, but also by the instantiation from the activities of the users. These
implication for practice provides a particularly salient insight into the emergent
properties of game design element, where stakeholders tasked with developing
specific elements of engagement as part of a wider business system, may not
foresee the actual levels of engagement or motivational affordance. For research,
this alludes to a continual and evolving process of examining properties of game
design elements, and also how these can exhibit alternative emergent properties
beyond their original design.

In summary, our contributions for knowledge in this research suggest that game
design elements not only exhibit alternative emergent properties as a result of the
interactions through the activities they support, but also how these mediate levels
of motivation and engagement with a business system. This is prominent for
practice, where organisations facing challenges in better engaging and motivating
their workforce (Burke, 2014; Deterding, 2012; O'Boyle & Harter, 2014; Rauch,
2013), need to respond to system design challenges (Zhang, 2008). We therefore
conclude by suggesting a dimension of emergence of game design elements, in
the gamification of business systems to engage the workforce in the digital age.

International Gamification for Business Conference 8

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

References
Adkins, A. (2015). Majority of U.S. Employees Not Engaged Despite Gains in 2014. Retrieved
28 January, 2015, from http://bit.ly/1uUCjpX
Briscoe, G., & Marinos, A. (2009). Digital ecosystems in the clouds: towards community cloud
computing. Paper presented at the Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, 2009. DEST'09. 3rd
IEEE International Conference on. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DEST.2009.5276725
Burke, B. (2014). Gamify: How gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things:
Bibliomotion, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315230344
Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and
Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond.
Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8
Cheng, R. (2014). How Clash of Clans' clan wars got me addicted all over again. Retrieved 26
April, 2014, from http://cnet.co/1HMpXZl
Ciborra, C. (2000). From control to drift: the dynamics of corporate information infastructures:
Oxford University Press.
Ciborra, C., & Hanseth, O. (1998). From tool to Gestell: Agendas for managing the information
infrastructure. Information Technology & People, 11(4), 305-327.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09593849810246129
Connor, H., Shaw, S., Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates.
Education+ Training, 50(5), 366-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910810889057
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction:
Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: designing for motivation. interactions, 19(4), 14-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212883
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to
gamefulness: defining gamification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th International
Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2181037.2181040
El-Masri, M., Tarhini, A., Hassouna, M., & Elyas, T. (2015). A design science approach to Gamify
education: From games to platforms. Paper presented at the Twenty-Third European Conference
on Information Systems (ECIS).
Erturkoglu, Z., Zhang, J., & Mao, E. (2015). Pressing the Play Button: What Drives the Intention
to Play Social Mobile Games? International Journal of E-Business Research (IJEBR), 11(3), 54-
71. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijebr.2015070104
Hamari, J., Huotari, K. and Tolvanen, J. (2015) Gamification from the Economics Perspective. In:
Walz, S.P. and Deterding, S., Eds., The Gameful World: Approaches, Issues, Applications, MIT
Press, Cambridge, 139-161.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does Gamification Work?—A Literature Review of
Empirical Studies on Gamification. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. HICSS. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.377
Herger, M. (2014). Enterprise Gamification: Engaging People by Letting Them Have Fun:
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Herzig, P., Ameling, M., & Schill, A. (2012). A generic platform for enterprise gamification. Paper
presented at the Software Architecture (WICSA) and European Conference on Software
Architecture (ECSA), 2012 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/WICSA-
ECSA.212.33

International Gamification for Business Conference 9

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

Huotari, K., & Hamari, J. (2012). Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. Paper
presented at the Proceeding of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2393132.2393137
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-based Methods and
Strategies for Training and Education: Wiley.
Khatib, F., DiMaio, F., Cooper, S., Kazmierczyk, M., Gilski, M., Krzywda, S., . . . Popović, Z.
(2011). Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game
players. Nature structural & molecular biology, 18(10), 1175-1177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2119
King, D., Greaves, F., Exeter, C., & Darzi, A. (2013). ‘Gamification’: Influencing health behaviours
with games. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 106(3), 76-78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0141076813480996
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., Callan, R. C., & Armstrong, M. B. (2015). Psychological theory and
the gamification of learning Gamification in education and business (pp. 165-186): Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_9
Lee, Y.-T., Chen, K.-T., Cheng, Y.-M., & Lei, C.-L. (2011). World of Warcraft avatar history
dataset. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on
Multimedia systems. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1943552.1943569
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through
employee engagement: a report to government.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change
the world: Penguin.
Michael, D. R., & Chen, S. L. (2005). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform:
Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade.
Mollick, E. R., & Rothbard, N. (2013). Mandatory Fun: Gamification and the Impact of Games at
Work. The Wharton School Research Paper Series. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2277103
Monu, K., & Ralph, P. (2013). Beyond Gamification: Implications of Purposeful Games for the
Information Systems Discipline. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.1042.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. Paper presented
at the Proc. 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL.
Nicholson, S. (2012). A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification.
Games+ Learning+ Society, 8(1).
O'Boyle, E., & Harter, J. (2014). State of the global workplace: Employee engagement insights
for business leaders worldwide: Gallup.
Paharia, R. (2013). Loyalty 3.0: How to revolutionize customer and employee engagement with
big data and gamification: McGraw Hill Professional.
Penenberg, A. L. (2013). Play at Work: How games inspire breakthrough thinking: Hachette UK.
Petridis, P., Dunwell, I., De Freitas, S., & Panzoli, D. (2010). An engine selection methodology for
high fidelity serious games. Paper presented at the Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious
Applications (VS-GAMES). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2010.26
Rauch, M. (2013). Best practices for using enterprise gamification to engage employees and
customers Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services (pp. 276-283): Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39262-7_31
Reeves, B., & Read, J. L. (2013). Total engagement: How games and virtual worlds are changing
the way people work and businesses compete: Harvard Business Press.
Richter, G., Raban, D. R., & Rafaeli, S. (2015). Studying Gamification: The Effect of Rewards and
Incentives on Motivation Gamification in education and business (pp. 21-46): Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_2

International Gamification for Business Conference 10

Dacre, Constantinides, & Nandhakumar 2015

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Sani, F. (2010). Self continuity: Individual and collective perspectives: Psychology Press.
Singh, S. (2012). Gamification: A Strategic Tool for Organizational Effectiveness. International
Journal of Management, 1(1), 108-113.
Skilton, M. (2015). Building the Digital Enterprise: Palgrave Macmillan.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137477729
Strader, T. J., Lin, F.-R., & Shaw, M. J. (1998). Information infrastructure for electronic virtual
organization management. Decision Support Systems, 23(1), 75-94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(98)00037-2
Supercell. (2014). How Often Do You Play Clash Of Clans? (On Average A Day). Retrieved 7
December, 2014, from http://bit.ly/1ML7s97
Thom, J., Millen, D., & DiMicco, J. (2012). Removing gamification from an enterprise SNS. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145362
Wood, R. T., Griffiths, M. D., & Parke, A. (2007). Experiences of time loss among videogame
players: An empirical study. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 38-44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9994
Zhang, P. (2008). Technical opinion Motivational affordances: reasons for ICT design and use.
Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 145-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1400214.1400244
Zichermann, G., & Cunningham, C. (2011). Gamification by Design: Implementing Game
Mechanics in Web and Mobile Apps: O'Reilly Media.

International Gamification for Business Conference 11